Misplaced Pages

#564435

89-630: Three commentaries on the sutra traditionally attributed to Nagarjuna also survive in Tibetan (Peking nos. 5466, 5485, 5486). There is also a commentary attributed to Kamalasila (eighth century). While the Śālistamba does not survive fully in Sanskrit, it is the most widely quoted sutra in Mahayana texts on the topic of pratityasamutpada and thus about 90 percent of the material survives as various quotations in other Buddhist Sanskrit works. Therefore,

178-466: A neo-Kantian and thus making ultimate truth a metaphysical noumenon or an "ineffable ultimate that transcends the capacities of discursive reason", others such as Mark Siderits and Jay L. Garfield have argued that Nāgārjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth" (Siderits) and that Nāgārjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths. Hence according to Garfield: Suppose that we take

267-413: A Buddha is often seen as "a spiritual king, relating to and caring for the world", rather than simply a teacher who after his death "has completely 'gone beyond' the world and its cares". Buddha Sakyamuni 's life and death on earth is then usually understood docetically , as a "mere appearance", his death was an unreal show (which was done in order to teach others), while in reality he continues to live in

356-463: A Buddha, a disciple of a Buddha, a deva (heavenly being), a ṛṣi (a sage), or an emanation of one of these beings; however, they must first receive certification from a Buddha that its contents are true Dharma. The Indian Mahāyāna scholar Shantideva (8th century) states: Through four factors is an inspired utterance [ pratibhana ] the word of the Buddhas. What four? (i)...the inspired utterance

445-470: A body of ten Mahayana sutras translated by Lokaksema before 186 C.E. – and these constitute our earliest objectively dated Mahayana texts. This picture may be qualified by the analysis of very early manuscripts recently coming out of Afghanistan, but for the meantime this is speculation. In effect we have a vast body of anonymous but relatively coherent literature, of which individual items can only be dated firmly when they were translated into another language at

534-697: A broad genre of Buddhist scripture ( sūtra ) that are accepted as canonical and as buddhavacana ("Buddha word") in certain communities of Mahāyāna Buddhism . They are largely preserved in Sanskrit manuscripts, and translations in the Tibetan Buddhist canon and Chinese Buddhist canon . Several hundred Mahāyāna sūtras survive in Sanskrit, or in Chinese and Tibetan translations. They are also sometimes called Vaipulya ("extensive") sūtras by earlier sources. The Buddhist scholar Asaṅga classified

623-483: A common prevailing view of the Mahāyāna sūtras among modern Buddhist studies scholars as follows: Western scholarship does not go so far as to impugn the religious authority of Mahayana sutras, but it tends to assume that they are not the literal word of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha. Unlike the śrāvaka critics just cited, we have no possibility of knowing just who composed and compiled these texts, and for us, removed from

712-439: A conventional entity, such as a table. We analyze it to demonstrate its emptiness, finding that there is no table apart from its parts [...]. So we conclude that it is empty. But now let us analyze that emptiness [...]. What do we find? Nothing at all but the table's lack of inherent existence. [...]. To see the table as empty [...] is to see the table as conventional, as dependent. Mahayana sutras The Mahāyāna sūtras are

801-456: A kind of ontological anti-foundationalism or a metaphysical anti-realism . Understanding the nature of the emptiness of phenomena is simply a means to an end, which is nirvana . Thus Nāgārjuna's philosophical project is ultimately a soteriological one meant to correct our everyday cognitive processes which mistakenly posits svabhāva on the flow of experience. Some scholars such as Fyodor Shcherbatskoy and T.R.V. Murti held that Nāgārjuna

890-519: A known date. A. K. Warder notes that the Mahāyāna Sūtras are highly unlikely to have come from the teachings of the historical Buddha, since the language and style of every extant Mahāyāna Sūtra is comparable more to later Indian texts than to texts that could have circulated in the Buddha's putative lifetime. Warder also notes that the Tibetan historian Tāranātha (1575–1634) proclaimed that after

979-774: A minority and largely unrecognized movement within the fold of nikāya Buddhism." By the second century, early Mahāyāna Sūtras such as the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā were already circulating among certain Mahāyāna circles. Very little is reliably known of the life of Nāgārjuna and modern historians do not agree on a specific date (1st to 3rd century CE) or place (multiple places in India suggested) for him. The earliest surviving accounts were written in Chinese and Tibetan centuries after his death and are mostly hagiographical accounts that are historically unverifiable. Some scholars such as Joseph Walser argue that Nāgārjuna

SECTION 10

#1732779544565

1068-451: A naga can be a symbol of a realised arhat or wise person. Traditional sources also claim that Nāgārjuna practised ayurvedic alchemy ( rasayāna ). Kumārajīva's biography for example, has Nāgārjuna making an elixir of invisibility, and Bus-ton, Taranatha and Xuanzang all state that he could turn rocks into gold. Tibetan hagiographies also state that Nāgārjuna studied at Nālanda University. However, according to Walser, this university

1157-544: A permanent and eternal substance ( svabhava ) because, like a dream, they are mere projections of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are experienced, they are not mere names ( prajnapti ) ." According to David Seyfort Ruegg , the Madhyamakasastrastuti attributed to Candrakirti ( c.  600 – c. 650) refers to eight texts by Nagarjuna: the (Madhyamaka)karikas , the Yuktisastika ,

1246-507: A select few individuals. The practice of visualization of Buddhas (in texts like the Sukhāvatīvyūha ) has been seen by some scholars as a possible explanation for the source of certain Mahāyāna sūtras which were seen as revelations from Buddha in other heavenly worlds. Williams also notes that there are other Mahāyāna texts which speak of sūtras being revealed or entrusted to forest dwelling monks by devas (deities). Paul Harrison notes that

1335-452: A single, coherent philosophical system," and are attributed to Nagarjuna by a variety of Indian and Tibetan sources. The Tibetan historian Buston considers the first six to be the main treatises of Nāgārjuna (this is called the "yukti corpus", rigs chogs ), while according to Tāranātha only the first five are the works of Nāgārjuna. TRV Murti considers Ratnāvalī , Pratītyasamutpādahṝdaya and Sūtrasamuccaya to be works of Nāgārjuna as

1424-674: A small elite of hardcore ascetics. While some Mahāyāna sūtras like the Vimalakirti sūtra and the White Lotus sūtra criticize arhats and sravakas (referring to non-Mahāyānists) as lacking wisdom, and reject their path as a lower vehicle, i.e. ' hīnayāna ' (the 'inferior way'), earlier Mahāyāna sūtras do not do this. As noted by David Drewes "early Mahāyāna sūtras often present their teachings as useful not only to people who wish to become Buddhas, but to those who wish to attain arhatship or pratyekabuddhahood as well. The old idea that

1513-787: A thirty-year period at the end of the second century in the Andhra region around Dhanyakataka (modern-day Amaravati )." According to Walser, "the earliest extant legends about Nāgārjuna are compiled into Kumārajīva ’s biography of Nāgārjuna, which he translated into Chinese in about 405 CE." According to this biography, Nāgārjuna was born into a Brahmin family and later became a Buddhist. The traditional religious hagiographies place Nāgārjuna in various regions of India (Kumārajīva and Candrakirti place him in Vidarbha region of South India, Xuanzang in south Kosala ) Traditional religious hagiographies credit Nāgārjuna with being associated with

1602-463: A transcendent realm in order to help all beings. Mahāyāna sūtras, especially those of the Prajñāpāramitā genre, teach the importance of the practice of the six perfections ( pāramitā ) as part of the path to Buddhahood , and special attention is given to the perfection of wisdom ( prajñāpāramitā ) which is seen as primary. The importance of developing bodhicitta , which refers to a mind that

1691-445: A useful summary of this tradition, see Wedemeyer 2007. Lindtner sees the author of some of these tantric works as being a tantric Nagarjuna who lives much later, sometimes called "Nagarjuna II". Nāgārjuna's major thematic focus is the concept of śūnyatā (translated into English as "emptiness") which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anātman "not-self" and pratītyasamutpāda "dependent origination", to refute

1780-657: Is Nāgārjuna's best-known work. It is "not only a grand commentary on the Buddha's discourse to Kaccayana , the only discourse cited by name, but also a detailed and careful analysis of most of the important discourses included in the Nikayas and the Agamas , especially those of the Atthakavagga of the Sutta-nipata . Utilizing the Buddha's theory of "dependent arising" ( pratitya-samutpada ) , Nagarjuna demonstrated

1869-501: Is aimed at full awakening (i.e. Buddhahood) is also stressed. Another central practice advocated by the Mahāyāna sūtras is focused around "the acquisition of merit , the universal currency of the Buddhist world, a vast quantity of which was believed to be necessary for the attainment of Buddhahood". According to David Drewes, Mahāyāna sūtras teach simple religious practices that are supposed to make Buddhahood easy to achieve. Some of

SECTION 20

#1732779544565

1958-401: Is based on the idea that "Whatever is well spoken [ subhasita ], all that is the word of the Buddha [ buddhabhasita ]." As such, this idea holds that Mahāyāna is the "word of the Buddha" because it leads to awakening ( bodhi ), not because it was spoken by a specific individual with the title "Buddha". According to Venerable Hsuan Hua , there are five types of beings who may speak "Buddha word":

2047-527: Is connected with truth, not untruth; (ii) it is connected with the Dharma, not that which is not the Dharma; (iii) it brings about the renunciation of moral taints [ klesa ] not their increase; and (iv) it shows the laudable qualities of nirvana, not those of the cycle of rebirth [samsara]. Williams writes that similar ideas can be found in the Pali Canon , though it is interpreted in a more open ended way in

2136-433: Is evidence of disagreement as regards the details of the Buddha's teaching. John W. Pettit writes that "Mahāyāna has not got a strong historical claim for representing the explicit teachings of the historical Buddha". However, he also argues that basic Mahāyāna concepts such as "the bodhisattva ethic, emptiness (sunyata), and the recognition of a distinction between buddhahood and arhatship as spiritual ideals," can be seen in

2225-459: Is most likely that when Nāgārjuna wrote the Ratnavali , he lived in a mixed monastery (with Mahāyānists and non-Mahāyānists) in which Mahāyānists were the minority. The most likely sectarian affiliation of the monastery according to Walser was Purvasailya, Aparasailya, or Caityaka (which were Mahāsāṃghika sub-schools). He also argues that "it is plausible that he wrote the Ratnavali within

2314-661: Is promoted in some of the sutras themselves. The Prajñāpāramitā sutras promote the copying, reading, recitation, contemplation, and distribution of the sutra, and they also teach its worship and veneration. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: Here, the sons or daughters of good family are enjoined to put up a copy of the Prajñāpāramitā on an altar, and to pay respect to it, to revere, worship and adore it, pay regard and reverence to it with flowers, incense, powders, umbrellas, banners, bells, and rows of burning lamps. The Prajñāpāramitā sutras also reference themselves as

2403-616: Is the Shih-erh-men-lun or 'Twelve-topic treatise' (* Dvadasanikaya or * Dvadasamukha-sastra ); one of the three basic treatises of the Sanlun school ( East Asian Madhyamaka ). Several works considered important in esoteric Buddhism are attributed to Nāgārjuna and his disciples by traditional historians like Tāranātha from 17th century Tibet. These historians try to account for chronological difficulties with various theories, such as seeing later writings as mystical revelations. For

2492-514: The Dà zhìdù lùn ( Taisho 1509, "Commentary on the great prajñaparamita ") which has been influential in Chinese Buddhism, has been questioned as a genuine work of Nāgārjuna by various scholars including Lamotte . This work is also only attested in a Chinese translation by Kumārajīva and is unknown in the Tibetan and Indian traditions. Other works are extant only in Chinese, one of these

2581-528: The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā provides one of Nāgārjuna's most famous quotations on emptiness and co-arising: sarvaṃ ca yujyate tasya śūnyatā yasya yujyate sarvaṃ na yujyate tasya śūnyaṃ yasya na yujyate All is possible when emptiness is possible. Nothing is possible when emptiness is impossible. As part of his analysis of the emptiness of phenomena in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā , Nāgārjuna critiques svabhāva in several different concepts. He discusses

2670-1130: The Bhavasamkranti, and the Dasabhumtkavibhāsā. Furthermore, Ruegg writes that "three collections of stanzas on the virtues of intelligence and moral conduct ascribed to Nagarjuna are extant in Tibetan translation": Prajñasatakaprakarana , Nitisastra-Jantuposanabindu and Niti-sastra-Prajñadanda. Meanwhile, those texts that Lindtner considers as questionable and likely inauthentic are: Aksarasataka, Akutobhaya (Mulamadhyamakavrtti), Aryabhattaraka-Manjusriparamarthastuti, Kayatrayastotra, Narakoddharastava, Niruttarastava, Vandanastava, Dharmasamgraha, Dharmadhatugarbhavivarana, Ekaslokasastra, Isvarakartrtvanirakrtih (A refutation of God/Isvara), Sattvaradhanastava, Upayahrdaya, Astadasasunyatasastra, Dharmadhatustava, Yogaratnamala. Meanwhile, Lindtner's list of outright wrong attributions is: Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Dà zhìdù lùn), Abudhabodhakaprakarana , Guhyasamajatantratika , Dvadasadvaraka , Prajñaparamitastotra, and Svabhavatrayapravesasiddhi. Notably,

2759-514: The Mahāsāṃghikas ) knew and accepted a theory of dependent origination which is almost identical with that of the Pali canon . It also shows a intent to consolidate and systematize material that is found throughout the Pali Canon with a few new, albeit conservative innovations. For example, it applies a simile of seed and plants to the doctrine of dependent origination, something which is not found in

Salistamba Sutra - Misplaced Pages Continue

2848-592: The Mahāyāna movement. His Mūlamadhyamakakārikā ( Root Verses on Madhyamaka , MMK) is the most important text on the Madhyamaka philosophy of emptiness . The MMK inspired a large number of commentaries in Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, Korean and Japanese and continues to be studied today. India in the first and second centuries CE was politically divided into various states, including the Kushan Empire and

2937-604: The Pāli Canon . According to Pettit, this suggests that Mahāyāna is "not simply an accretion of fabricated doctrines" but "has a strong connection with the teachings of Buddha himself". Mahāyāna sūtras are generally regarded by Mahāyānists as being more profound than the śrāvaka texts as well as generating more spiritual merit and benefit. Thus, they are seen as superior and more virtuous to non-Mahāyāna sūtras. The Mahāyāna sūtras were not recognized as being Buddha word ( buddhavacana ) by various groups of Indian Buddhists and there

3026-551: The Satavahana Kingdom . At this point in Buddhist history , the Buddhist community was already divided into various Buddhist schools and had spread throughout India. At this time, there was already a small and nascent Mahāyāna movement. Mahāyāna ideas were held by a minority of Buddhists in India at the time. As Joseph Walser writes, "Mahāyāna before the fifth century was largely invisible and probably existed only as

3115-687: The Sunyatasaptati , the Vigrahavyavartani , the Vidala (i.e. Vaidalyasutra/Vaidalyaprakarana ), the Ratnavali , the Sutrasamuccaya , and Samstutis (Hymns). This list covers not only much less than the grand total of works ascribed to Nagarjuna in the Chinese and Tibetan collections, but it does not even include all such works that Candrakirti has himself cited in his writings. According to one view, that of Christian Lindtner,

3204-407: The Buddha taught the sutras, they disappeared from the human world and circulated only in the world of the nagas . In Warder's view, "this is as good as an admission that no such texts existed until the 2nd century A.D." Paul Williams writes that while Mahāyāna tradition believes that the Mahāyāna sūtras were taught by the Buddha, "source-critical and historical awareness has made it impossible for

3293-471: The Buddha" (a combination of two well known statements in the Pali suttas). The sutra also seems to move closer to the Mahayana view that reality is illusory, using the term maya and also similes using reflections, which would become widely used to illustrate illusioriness in the Mahayana sutras. N. Ross Reat notes that this indicates that the early Mahayana tendency was not "self-consciously schismatic" but

3382-425: The Buddha's word by the school of Theravāda Buddhism . The origins of the Mahāyāna and their sūtras are not completely understood. Modern scholars have proposed numerous theories about the origins of Mahāyāna and the Mahāyāna texts. Some of the main theories are the following: According to David Drewes, none of these theories have been satisfactorily proven and they lack sufficient evidence. Drewes writes that

3471-544: The Buddhas Amitabha , Akshobhya and Vairocana , and the bodhisattvas Maitreya , Mañjusri , Ksitigarbha , and Avalokiteshvara . An important feature of Mahāyāna is the way that it understands the nature of Buddhahood . Mahāyāna texts see Buddhas (and to a lesser extent, certain bodhisattvas as well) as transcendental or supramundane ( lokuttara ) beings, who live for eons constantly helping others through their activity. According to Paul Williams, in Mahāyāna,

3560-530: The Mahāyāna began with the rejection of the arhat ideal in favor of that of the bodhisattva is thus clearly incorrect." Paul Williams also writes that earlier Mahāyāna sūtras like the Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra and the Ajitasena sutra do not present any antagonism towards the hearers or the ideal of arhatship like later sutras. According to David Drewes, Mahāyāna sūtras contain several elements besides

3649-423: The Mahāyāna in order to include a larger set of teachings that were seen as spiritually useful. The modern Japanese Zen Buddhist scholar D. T. Suzuki similarly argued that while the Mahāyāna sūtras may not have been directly taught by the historical Buddha, the "spirit and central ideas" of Mahāyāna "are those of its founder". Thus, Suzuki admits (and celebrates) how the Mahāyāna evolved and adapted itself to suit

Salistamba Sutra - Misplaced Pages Continue

3738-648: The Mahāyāna sūtras as part of the Bodhisattva Piṭaka , a collection of texts meant for bodhisattvas . Modern scholars of Buddhist studies generally hold that these sūtras first began to appear between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. They continued being composed, compiled, and edited until the decline of Buddhism in ancient India . Some of them may have also been composed outside of India, such as in Central Asia and in East Asia . Some of

3827-460: The Mahāyāna sūtras is the ideal of the Bodhisattva path, something which is not unique to them, however, as such a path is also taught in non-Mahayana texts which also required prediction of future Buddhahood in the presence of a living Buddha. What is unique to Mahāyāna sūtras is the idea that the term bodhisattva is applicable to any person from the moment they intend to become a Buddha (i.e.

3916-428: The Mahāyāna teachings. The reason these accounts give for the historically late disclosure of the Mahāyāna teachings is that most people were initially unable to understand the Mahāyāna sūtras at the time of the Buddha (500 BCE) and suitable recipients for these teachings had not yet arisen. Some traditional accounts of the transmission of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras claim that they were originally stored or hidden in

4005-655: The Pali canon. The core of the sutra is an "elaboration upon cause ( hetu ) in the subjective pratityasamutpada formula." Mahayana elements in the sutra include the fact that it is said to be given by the Bodhisattva Maitreya and that it ends stating that whoever understands dependent arising will become a perfectly enlightened Buddha. The sutra is also a work focusing on the attainment of the Dharmakaya Buddha , stating "Whoever, monks, sees conditioned arising sees Dharma, and whoever sees Dharma sees

4094-606: The Sanskrit has been reconstructed by modern scholars (beginning with the work of Louis de La Vallée-Poussin , 1913). Many passages in this sutra have close parallels in the Pali suttas (especially the Mahatanha-sahkhaya Sutta , M1:256-71). The Salistamba also survives in six Chinese translations and in various Tibetan recensions, including some manuscripts from Dunhuang , and it is thus of great textual, historical and philological importance. The Śālistamba Sūtra shows that its proto-Mahayana transmitters (possibly

4183-474: The arising of bodhicitta ) and without the requirement of a living Buddha. They also claim that any person who accepts and uses Mahāyāna sūtras either had already received or will soon receive such a prediction from a Buddha, establishing their position as an irreversible bodhisattva. Some Mahāyāna sūtras promote it as a universal path for everyone, while others like the Ugraparipṛcchā see it as something for

4272-513: The content found in the sūtras. Numerous Mahayana sutras teach the veneration and recitation of the sutras themselves as a religious icon and as an embodiment of the Dharma and the Buddha. In Indian Mahayana Buddhism , the worship of sutras, like the Prajñāpāramitā sutra books ( pustaka ) and manuscripts became an important part of Mahayana practice which was considered to bring wisdom, merit and apotropaic protection from harm. This practice

4361-433: The development of the two truths doctrine , which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, the ultimate truth ( paramārtha satya ) and the conventional or superficial truth ( saṃvṛtisatya ). The ultimate truth to Nāgārjuna is the truth that everything is empty of essence, this includes emptiness itself ('the emptiness of emptiness'). While some (Murti, 1955) have interpreted this by positing Nāgārjuna as

4450-687: The early Mahāyāna texts, which were not written documents but orally preserved teachings. Drewes writes, that Mahāyāna sūtras advocate mnemic/oral/aural practices more frequently than they do written ones, make reference to people who have memorized or are in the process of memorizing them, and consistently attach higher prestige to mnemic/oral practices than to ones involving written texts. Study of differences in various versions of sutras translated into Chinese has directly shown that these texts were often transmitted orally. Mahāyāna sūtras were committed to memory and recited by important learned monks called "Dharma reciters" ( dharmabhāṇakas ), who were viewed as

4539-413: The entire Hīnayāna corpus. There is also no evidence that Mahāyāna ever referred to a separate formal school or sect of Buddhism, but rather that it existed within the early Buddhist schools as a certain set of ideals, texts and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas. Mahāyānists also never had a separate Vinaya (monastic rule) from the early Buddhist schools . The Chinese monk Yijing who visited India in

SECTION 50

#1732779544565

4628-458: The fact that they only appeared at a later time. One such reason was that they had been hidden away in the land of the Nāgas (snake deities, dragons) until the proper time for their dissemination arrived. The Mahāyāna sūtras were not accepted by all Buddhists in ancient India, and the various Indian Buddhist schools disagreed on their status as "word of the Buddha". They are generally not accepted as

4717-493: The fifth and sixth centuries saw a great increase in their production. By this time, Chinese pilgrims, such as Faxian , Yijing , and Xuanzang were traveling to India, and their writings describe monasteries which they label 'Mahāyāna' as well as monasteries where both Mahāyāna monks and non-Mahāyāna monks lived together. Dating the Mahāyāna sūtras is quite difficult; and many can only be dated firmly to when they were translated into another language. Andrew Skilton summarizes

4806-499: The first two are quoted profusely by Chandrakirti and the third by Shantideva . In addition to works mentioned above, numerous other works are attributed to Nāgārjuna, many of which are dubious attributions and later works. There is an ongoing, lively controversy over which of those works are authentic. Christian Lindtner divides the various attributed works as "1) correctly attributed, 2) wrongly attributed to him, and 3) those which may or may not be genuine." Lindtner further divides

4895-648: The futility of [...] metaphysical speculations. His method of dealing with such metaphysics is referred to as "middle way" ( madhyama pratipad ). It is the middle way that avoided the substantialism of the Sarvastivadins as well as the nominalism of the Sautrantikas . In the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā , "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty ( sunya ) . This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of

4984-465: The highest object of study and worship, claiming that studying, reciting, and worshiping them is superior to worshiping stupas , Buddha relics , and other objects. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā claims that this is because "the relics of the Tathāgata have come forth from this perfection of wisdom". Since the very concept of Prajñāpāramitā (transcendent knowledge, perfection of wisdom) is linked with

5073-511: The idea that devas may preach the Buddha word is also present in non-Mahāyāna texts. Paul Harrison has also noted the importance of dream revelations in certain texts such as the Arya-svapna-nirdesa which lists and interprets 108 dream signs. A different Mahāyāna justification for the authenticity of the Mahāyāna sūtras is that they are in accord with the truth, with the Buddha's Dharma and therefore they lead to awakening. This

5162-625: The medieval period, and the 3rd-4th century inscriptions found at the site make it clear that it was known as "Vijayapuri" in the ancient period. There are a multitude of texts attributed to "Nāgārjuna", many of these texts date from much later periods. This has caused much confusion for the traditional Buddhist biographers and doxographers . Modern scholars are divided on how to classify these later texts and how many later writers called "Nāgārjuna" existed (the name remains popular today in Andhra Pradesh). Some scholars have posited that there

5251-434: The metaphysics of some of his contemporaries. For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without any svabhāva , literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent existence" and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at

5340-468: The modern scholar to accept this traditional account." However, Williams further writes that Nevertheless, it is not always absurd to suggest that a Mahāyāna sūtra or teaching may contain elements of a tradition which goes back to the Buddha himself, which was played down or just possibly excluded from the canonical formulations of the early schools. We have seen that even at the First Council there

5429-982: The most influential Mahāyāna sūtras include the Lotus Sutra , the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras , the Avatamsaka Sutra , the Lankavatara Sutra , the Pure Land Sutras , and the Nirvana Sutra . Mahāyāna Buddhists typically consider several major Mahāyāna sūtras to have been taught by Shakyamuni Buddha , committed to memory and recited by his disciples, in particular Ananda . However, other Mahāyāna sūtras are presented as being taught by other figures, such as bodhisattvas like Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara . There are various reasons that Indian Mahāyāna Buddhists gave to explain

SECTION 60

#1732779544565

5518-591: The most likely origin of Mahāyāna is that it was "primarily a textual movement, focused on the revelation, preaching, and dissemination of Mahāyāna sūtras, that developed within, and never really departed from, traditional Buddhist social and institutional structures." The figures of this movement probably saw themselves as bodhisattvas entrusted with teaching and preserving the Mahāyāna sūtras. Scholars like Joseph Walser have also noted how Mahāyāna sūtras are heterogeneous and seem to have been composed in different communities with varying ideas. Walser writes that "Mahāyāna

5607-482: The most widely taught practices taught in Mahāyāna sūtras include: Another innovative "shortcut" to Buddhahood in Mahāyāna sutras are what are often called Pure Land practices. These involve the invocation of Buddhas such as Amitabha and Aksobhya , who are said to have created " Buddha fields " or "pure lands" especially so that those beings who wish to be reborn there can easily and quickly become Buddhas. Reciting certain sūtras, along with meditating on and reciting

5696-553: The mountain of Śrīparvata near the city that would later be called Nāgārjunakoṇḍa ("Hill of Nāgārjuna"). The ruins of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa are located in Guntur district , Andhra Pradesh . The Caitika and Bahuśrutīya nikāyas are known to have had monasteries in Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. The archaeological finds at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa have not resulted in any evidence that the site was associated with Nagarjuna. The name "Nāgārjunakoṇḍa" dates from

5785-481: The names of these Buddhas can allow one to be reborn in these pure buddha-fields. One there, one can hear the Dharma directly from a Buddha and train in the bodhisattva path in a pure place without disturbances. The study of Mahāyāna sūtras is central to East Asian Buddhism , where they are widely read. In Tibetan Buddhism meanwhile, there is a greater emphasis on the study of Mahāyāna śāstras (philosophical treatises), which are seen as more systematic ways of studying

5874-461: The problems of positing any sort of inherent essence to causation, movement, change and personal identity. Nāgārjuna makes use of the Indian logical tool of the tetralemma to attack any essentialist conceptions. Nāgārjuna's logical analysis is based on four basic propositions: To say that all things are 'empty' is to deny any kind of ontological foundation; therefore Nāgārjuna's view is often seen as

5963-402: The promotion of the bodhisattva ideal, including "expanded cosmologies and mythical histories, ideas of purelands and great, 'celestial' Buddhas and bodhisattvas , descriptions of powerful new religious practices, new ideas on the nature of the Buddha, and a range of new philosophical perspectives." Several Mahāyāna sūtras depict Buddhas or Bodhisattvas not found in earlier texts, such as

6052-485: The realm of the nāgas (serpent-like supernatural beings). Later, these sūtras were retrieved by Nāgārjuna . Other Mahāyāna sources state that they were preached or preserved by bodhisattvas like Mañjuśrī or Buddhas like Vajradhāra . Another Mahāyāna explanation for the later appearance of the Mahāyāna sūtras in the historical record is the idea that they are the revelations of certain Buddhas and bodhisattvas, transmitted through visions and meditative experiences to

6141-491: The same name who was said to have travelled to the Himalayas. Walser thinks that it is possible that stories related to this figure influenced Buddhist legends as well. [REDACTED] Religion portal There exist a number of influential texts attributed to Nāgārjuna; however, as there are many pseudepigrapha attributed to him, lively controversy exists over which are his authentic works. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

6230-523: The seventh century, writes about how Mahāyāna monastics and non-Mahāyāna monastics lived together under the same Vinaya. The only difference among them was that Mahāyāna monks venerated the bodhisattvas and read the Mahāyāna sūtras. Some scholars like Richard Gombrich think that Mahāyāna Sūtras only arose after the practice of writing down religious texts became widespread in India and thus that they were always written documents. However, James Apple and David Drewes have drawn attention to these oral features of

6319-534: The substitute for the actual speaking presence of the Buddha. Much of the early extant evidence for the origins of Mahāyāna comes from early Chinese translations of Mahāyāna texts. These Mahāyāna teachings were first propagated into China by Lokakṣema , the first translator of Mahāyāna Sūtras into Chinese during the second century. The Mahāyāna movement remained quite small until the fifth century, with very few manuscripts having been found before then (the exceptions are from Bamiyan ). According to Joseph Walser,

6408-662: The sutra itself is placed or recited, it makes the ground a caitya (a sacred space, shrine, sanctuary). According to Jacob Kinnard, Prajñāpāramitā sutras even present their physical form (as books, manuscripts, etc) as being akin to the Buddha's rūpakāya (physical form to be worshiped, like his relics) as well as being his dharmakāya (which contains the Dharma , the Buddha's teachings). The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā further states: One might hear this deep perfection of wisdom being spoken, being taught, being explained, being pointed out, and having heard it here he might bring forth

6497-767: The teaching of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras as well as with having revealed these scriptures to the world after they had remained hidden for some time. The sources differ on where this happened and how Nāgārjuna retrieved the sutras. Some sources say he retrieved the sutras from the land of the nāgas . Nāgārjuna himself is often depicted in composite form comprising human and nāga characteristics. Nāgas are snake-like supernatural beings of great magical power that feature in Hindu , Buddhist and Jain mythology . Nāgas are found throughout Indian religious culture, and typically signify intelligent serpents or dragons that are responsible for rain, lakes, and other bodies of water. In Buddhism,

6586-480: The texts that he considers "least controversial": Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā, Vigrahavyāvartanī, Śūnyatāsaptati, Yuktiṣāṣṭika , Catuḥstava , Vaidalyaprakaraṇa and Ratnāvalī . Similarly, Jan Westerhoff notes how there is uncertainty about the attribution of Nagarjuna's works (and about his life in general). He relies on six works: MMK, Vigrahavyāvartanī, Śūnyatāsaptati, Yuktiṣāṣṭika , Vaidalyaprakaraṇa and Ratnāvalī, all of which "expound

6675-520: The texts themselves, the texts were considered to have a mystic power within, which is the source of all the merit in the other religious objects, like Buddha relics. Furthermore, Mahayana sutras like the Aṣṭasāhasrikā often claim that the Buddha is present in the text. For example the Aṣṭasāhasrikā says that "when a pūja is done to the Prajñāpāramitā, it is a pūja to the venerable past, present, and future Buddhas." This sutra also states that wherever

6764-544: The third category of dubious or questionable texts into those which are "perhaps authentic" and those who are unlikely to be authentic. Those which he sees as perhaps being authentic include: Ruegg notes various works of uncertain authorship which have been attributed to Nagarjuna, including the Dharmadhatustava (Hymn to the Dharmadhatu , which shows later influences), Mahayanavimsika, Salistambakarikas,

6853-413: The time of their authors by up to two millennia, they are effectively an anonymous literature. It is widely accepted that Mahayana sutras constitute a body of literature that began to appear from as early as the 1st century BCE, although the evidence for this date is circumstantial. The concrete evidence for dating any part of this literature is to be found in dated Chinese translations, amongst which we find

6942-467: The time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their becoming —coming into existence —, as opposed to being . Nāgārjuna means by real any entity which has a nature of its own (svabhāva), which is not produced by causes (akrtaka), which is not dependent on anything else (paratra nirapeksha). Chapter 24 verse 14 of

7031-441: The times by developing new teachings and texts, while at the same time maintaining the core "spirit" of the Buddha. The teachings as contained in the Mahāyāna sūtras as a whole have been described as a loosely bound bundle of many teachings, which was able to contain the various contradictions. Because of these contradictory elements, there are "very few things that can be said with certainty about Mahāyāna Buddhism". Central to

7120-489: The works definitely written by Nāgārjuna are: Other scholars have challenged and argued against some of the above works being Nagarjuna's. David F. Burton notes that Christian Lindtner is "rather liberal" with his list of works and that other scholars have called some of these into question. He notes how Paul Williams argued convincingly that the Bodhicittavivaraṇa must be a later text. In his study, Burton relies on

7209-403: Was a separate Aryuvedic writer called Nāgārjuna who wrote numerous treatises on Rasayana . Also, there is a later Tantric Buddhist author by the same name who may have been a scholar at Nālandā University and wrote on Buddhist tantra . According to Donald S. Lopez Jr. , he originally belonged to a Brahmin family from eastern India and later became Buddhist. There is also a Jain figure of

7298-639: Was also known as being strongly opposed to the Mahayana sutras as noted by the Tibetan historian Tāranātha . Xuanzang reports that a Saṃmitīya known as Prajñāgupta composed a treatise which argued against the Mahāyāna. Various Mahāyāna sūtras warn against the charge that they are not word of the Buddha and defend their authenticity in different ways. Some Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Gaṇḍavyūha often criticize early Buddhist figures, such as Sariputra for lacking knowledge and goodness, and thus, these elders or śrāvaka are seen as not intelligent enough to receive

7387-466: Was an Indian monk and Mahāyāna Buddhist philosopher of the Madhyamaka (Centrism, Middle Way) school. He is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers. Jan Westerhoff considers him to be "one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Asian philosophy ." Nāgārjuna is widely considered to be the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy and a defender of

7476-573: Was an advisor to a king of the Sātavāhana dynasty which ruled the Deccan Plateau in the second century. This is supported by most of the traditional hagiographical sources as well. Archaeological evidence at Amarāvatī indicates that if this is true, the king may have been Yajña Śrī Śātakarṇi (c. second half of the 2nd century). On the basis of this association, Nāgārjuna is conventionally placed at around 150–250 CE. Walser thinks that it

7565-610: Was lively debate over their authenticity throughout the Buddhist world. Buddhist communities such as the Mahāsāṃghika school and the Theravada tradition of Sri Lanka became divided into groups which accepted or did not accept these texts. Theravāda commentaries of the Mahavihara sub-school mention these texts (which they call Vedalla/Vetulla ) as not being the Buddha word and being counterfeit scriptures. The Saṃmitīya school

7654-456: Was not a strong monastic center until about 425. Also, as Walser notes, "Xuanzang and Yijing both spent considerable time at Nālanda and studied Nāgārjuna’s texts there. It is strange that they would have spent so much time there and yet chose not to report any local tales of a man whose works played such an important part in the curriculum." Some sources ( Bu-ston and the other Tibetan historians) claim that in his later years, Nāgārjuna lived on

7743-636: Was probably never unitary, but differed from region to region.". Likewise, Hajime Nakamura states: Unlike the various recensions of the Hīnayāna canon, which were virtually closed by the early centuries of the common era and which shared, at least ideally, a common structure . . . the Mahāyāna scriptures were composed in a variety of disparate social and religious environments over the course of several centuries, diverge widely from each other in content and outlook, and were in many cases meant to stand as individual works representing (it has been conjectured) rivals to

7832-400: Was simply one of the many attempts to systematize and elaborate on the Buddha's teachings. While some schools chose to incorporate these systematizations into Abhidharma texts, the proto-Mahayana chose to incorporate them into sutras. There are three commentaries on the text: Nagarjuna Nāgārjuna ( Sanskrit : नागार्जुन, Nāgārjuna ; c.  150  – c.  250 CE )

7921-508: Was the inventor of the Shunyata doctrine; however, more recent work by scholars such as Choong Mun-keat, Yin Shun and Dhammajothi Thero has argued that Nāgārjuna was not an innovator by putting forth this theory, but that, in the words of Shi Huifeng, "the connection between emptiness and dependent origination is not an innovation or creation of Nāgārjuna". Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in

#564435